marcos

Well that's no surprise. You always hold Exorcet's hand and have done in the past too. Wouldn't surprise me if you had the same IP address. One engine vs 2 engines vs survivability in case of engine failure/damage. That point is irrefutable. No, with one engine it's no longer STOVL, but you may still be able to perform an SRVL as you would with a fully-loaded F-35B even if the engine is working. You could also perform an emergency divert to a land AFB in many cases. SRVL http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9DEBC990-61EE-4363-A5F4-CA4A63DFF6B3/0/desider_51_August2012v1_2U.pdf Point regarding stealth and external weapon carry for interdiction was also valid. It seems clear that the F-35 isn't getting nearly twice the range with nearly twice the fuel. I've provided figures but they just get brushed aside and I still get told that I'm not supporting my statements. So really, when you're up against that, what's the point? I just get random statements back, the answer to which is obvious but I just get pissed off typing the obvious. I get faced with statements with no supporting evidence, I provide supporting evidence against them and then get told I'm not providing supporting evidence, so bollocks to it. You can't win that kind of argument, it's like someone saying , "well 1+1 = 3". Where do you go from there? You like the F-35 and are completely blind to any short-comings, I get it, but maybe try pretending it's RCS is about 0.1m2 instead of 0.005m2 and see if you still think it's the best plane around.

FAB-3000

Bollocks.

So it can fly with no engines and a 100lb/ft2 wing loading? There's your problem. Is the enemy more likely to shoot an engine when you're taking off/landing or somewhere in between? Didn't say they did but it scuppers your 'glide as well as an F-15' BS. For a given Cl it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II 2200-1600-2500km ABC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon 2900km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet 2350km JFC, I give up. I have to type to explain even the most routinely obvious principles. All your points are completely wrong I just can't be bothered to continue replying to this illogical, circle-jerk crap.

T-95?

I think a dog was the first animal in space??? Stand corrected. US put fruit flies there on a German V-2 in 1947 and the USSR put a Monkey there in 1949.

IL-476 (Il-76MD-90A)

No, wrong. With 1 of 2 engines gone you could potentially divert to a friendly land AFB, or attempt an emergency hook/net landing on a carrier. With 1 of 1 engines gone and stumpy wings, you fall out of the sky like a brick. Absolute BS. Wing loading isn't even comparable with an F-15. Love to see an F-35 land with one wing. No one suggested doing it with one engine. Okay but don't be offended when I say that it will have dogfight manoeuvrability that's likely to be roughly on par with an F-4 or some other 3rd gen aircraft, or at least closer to an F-4 than an F-15. Nah, unless you mean that the F-35B has more range than a Harrier.:lol: The F-35C is roughly the same as an F-18E/F and it's inferior to a Rafale M. The F-35B is far worse still. The F-35A has less range than a Typhoon. That must explain why its supercruise is still lower than a Rafale M or Typhoon and it maxes out at about Mach 1.6 clean. The B can't carry JSOW/JSOW-ER internally and no variant can carry a JASSM internally, so for an interdiction mission, the 'clean-body' argument doesn't fly and nor does the stealth argument really. Then you're not thinking. Please think instead of making me type. Is stealth really an advantage if you have to sacrifice it to carry stand-off weapons, or use it but consequently have to go a lot closer to the enemy to complete the mission and potentially still be picked up by localised ADSs. See fuel load vs range vs other aircraft. No, go look for yourself.

Mali

Disagree with all the above. Most of which is just unsubstantiated argument. You've actually missed all the pertinent arguments for STOVL, like bad weather carrier operations where STOBAR and CATOBAR would be grounded, and faster turn-around times and higher mission rate. The last point is ridiculous. If one engine goes out with the F-35B, you're screwed too and you can't even land on a conventional runway. You just fall straight from the sky. It's not like you could even glide with those dodo wings. Wrt to CoG, you use thrust diverters. Hell of a lot simpler than a lift fan, more reliable and lighter too. You could also still play around with core size and BPR to get whatever low speed thrust you need. Performance? TWR < 1.0. Wing loading > 100lb/ft2. You should take a look at the 'burn more fuel' claim too, because from the stats I'm seeing, the F-35's range is very poor despite the decent fuel loads because of the small wings. Clean body? It's a flying brick. The stealth and the sensor package are quite literally the only things it has going for it, but with the inability to carry the JSOW and JSOW-ER internally and poor range on the B, stealth is less of a real advantage too.

It would help reduce his anti-western rhetoric if he doesn't come back though.

52 years after the first manned space-flight, Iran has joined the space race by launching Ahmadinejad into space:

Loads of loads MH-60L DAP A-1 Skyraider GR4s, with 12 Brimstone and 4 Alarms each 1 ton on your head repeatedly from 40-60nm aways

DCS v12?

HMS Ambush HMS Ocean and Aurora Borealis E-3D Sentry Merlin going into a C-17 HMS Dragon (left) and HMS Vanguard (right) Sea King and HMS Diamond AW159 Wildcat And on HMS Monmouth

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

Mali - Timbuktu Airport RAF Sentinel joins the fight Rafale loaded forbear

^HS that's a big helicopter. The Hind looks like a toy next to it.

China conducted successful test on ground-based mid-course balistic missile interception, it's now confirmed by Xinhua Agency and Ministry of National Defense of the PRC... http://news.mod.gov.cn/headlines/2013-01/27/content_4430406.htm Some videos taken from civilians...